"5-. -:?^- y 



v^^ 



\ 






-'^^ 




^0 ^<^^ 





^^0^ •■;»'-. ^-o/ ■*>^>. %.o^' :^: %/ 











GOD AND OUR COUNTRY.// / // 


- 


A 




DISCOURSE 




DELIVERED IN THE 




J..-;-;;. 




FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN ROXBURY, 




ON 




FAST DAY, April 8, 1847. 




By GEORGE PUTNAM, 




MINISTER OF THAT CHURCH. 




PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OF THE CONGREGATION. 




Seconlr IBirition. 




BOSTON: 




WM. CROSBY AND H. P. NICHOLS, 




111 Washington Street. 




1847. 





1^ 



GOD AND OUR COUNTRY, 



DISCOURSE 



DELIVERED IN THE 



FIRST CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH IN ROXBURY, 



FAST DAY, April 8, 1847. 



Bv GEORGE PUTNAM, 

MINISTER OP THAT CHURCH. 



PUBLISHED BY REQUEST OF THE CONGREGATION. 



Sccontr 3Siiitfon. 

f 

BOSTON: \^ 

Wi\I. CROSBY AND H. P. NICHOLS, 
111 Washington Street. 

1847. 






Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1847, by 

Wm. Crosby and H. P. Nichols, 

in the Clerk's Office of tlie District Court of tlie District of Massachusetts. 



CAMBRIDGE: 
M E T C A L F AND COMPANY, 

PRINTERS TO THE UNIVEKSITY. 



DISCOURSE 



MATTHEW XXII. 21. 

Render therefore unto C^sar the things which are Cesar's, 
AND UNTO God the things that are God's. 

These are the words of Jesus. The Pharisees 
were trying to entangle him in a dilemma which 
they thought he could not escape. They ask him 
whether it is right or wrong for them, Jews, to pay 
tribute to the Roman emperor. The difficulty of the 
question lay here. The Jews had been conquered, 
and were held as a Roman province by force of arms. 
If he said, without qualification, that it was right to 
pay the tribute, and so acknowledged the rightful su- 
premacy of the emperor, they knew he would expose 
himself to the indignation of the Jewish people, who 
held it as one of the most sacred ideas of their reli- 
gious and civil polity, that no sovereign but God 
should be recognized, or a man of their own race, 
whom God should designate and anoint. On the 
other hand, if he said it was wrong to pay the trib- 
ute, they could go at once to the Roman magistrate 
and accuse him of seditious words, and so destroy 
him. 



4 

The snare was well laid. An ultraist would have 
been caught in it. But Jesus was no ultraist. They 
could not drive him into ultraism in matters connected 
with civil government, social order, and God's prov- 
idence. He calls for a piece of coin, gets the conces- 
sion of his questioners that it bore Caesar's image and 
superscription, and then gives the answer of the text, 
in which he recognizes the authority and claims of 
the emperor, in such a manner that he could not be 
accused of being other than a peaceable subject, and 
yet with such restrictions in behalf of the divine law 
that he could not be charged with giving up the prin- 
ciples of piety and morality. 

Similar questions arise, in different shapes, in our 
own day. It is evident that there is in the public 
mind among us a great deal of perplexity, — con- 
fused and contradictory thinking, — on such questions 
as these: — How far do wrong and corrupt acts on 
the part of a nation, or of the government, as its organ, 
modify the allegiance due to it from an individual ? 
May we as Christians properly recognize and support a 
form of government, or a national compact, when that 
government or compact adopts courses and recognizes 
and maintains institutions which are in themselves at 
variance with the spirit and precepts of the Master, 
Christ, and the divine law of love and justice ? What 
shall we do, when the great national compact commits 
us either to an active part or a passive acquiescence 
in one course of proceeding or condition of things, 



and our Christian profession, and our ideas of abso- 
lute right and holiness, seem to commit us to an oppo- 
site course ? Questions like these are anxiously pon- 
dered and warmly discussed among us. They are in 
process of solution, and on the manner in which they 
shall be solved depends the future moral and civil des- 
tiny of the land. These questions, and others akin 
to them, are the great social and public questions of 
our time in this country ; and therefore they are 
questions very suitable for consideration on such an 
occasion as this. Indeed, they require a great deal of 
consideration, public and private, for they are not of a 
nature to be well settled in the off-hand manner in 
which many persons undertake to settle them. 

There is a widely active disposition in our commu- 
nity, at the present time, to apply moral tests to na- 
tional measures and institutions, and to examine them 
in the light of the Christian religion. Many are anx- 
iously inquiring how far the public policy and social 
state of the country conform to the divine law, as 
taught by Jesus Christ. It is a noble inquiry. We 
have reason to rejoice that it is going on. Great good 
must eventually result from it. But, so far as it is to 
affect the opinions and actions of our citizens in their 
social and civil relations, it needs to be pursued with 
wisdom and caution. 

Of course, it is found, on applying the strict test of 
the gospel to national proceedings and institutions, 
that they will not bear that test at all points. At 



many points there will be shortcomings, and at some 
points a flagrant violation of that perfect law. There 
is no nation on earth, nor has there ever been one, 
that will bear that test. Our own will not bear it. 
And in view of this lamentable fact, what shall we 
say and do ? What ground shall we take ? There 
are two ultra methods of settling this last question, — 
two forms of ultraism upon the subject. One is that 
which excludes moral tests and Christian considera- 
tions entirely from a man's view of public and na- 
tional affairs. This is the doctrine that leads men to 
put forth and repeat, in word or deed, such infamous 
maxims as these: — " All is fair in politics " ; " Take 
any advantage you can get over other nations " ; " Do 
your worst in war, and cheat your best in diplomacy." 
The highest and most respectable form which this 
doctrine takes is that which has become so familiar 
in our ears, — this, namely, " Our country, right or 
wrong." 

I will not discuss this doctrine. It is out of the 
pale of Christian reasoning. Those who hold it are 
not open to Christian considerations. If they profess 
Christianity as private men, or even the moral law as 
generally understood, — if they profess it, their pro- 
fession is either affectation or self-deceit. But there 
are but few men that do openly hold this ultra doc- 
trine, however they may often act in accordance 
with it. Every public measure or institution is de- 
fended by those interested in its support, either as just 



and good in itself, or as an unavoidable evil. This 
kind of ultraism is not roundly professed by many, al- 
though it is extensively practised upon in particular 
cases, and produces a vast amount of public corruption 
and iniquity. It prevails just to the degree in which 
the public mind is depraved ; it recedes just in pro- 
portion to the growth of true religion and morality in 
the land. 

The other and opposite kind of ultraism is that 
which expresses itself in such language as this : — 
" No union with slaveholders " ; " We will not be 
parties to a constitutional compact which recognizes 
and sustains a great iniquity " ; " The country which 
wages an unnecessary or unjust war (and many will 
say that all wars are unjust and unnecessary), that is 
not our country. We are Christians, and will not 
own it. Let us separate. Let us dissolve the Union. 
Let us form a new and smaller one, or else live in 
righteousness and peace without one." 

Such language as this is rather familiar to our ears. 
x4nd this form of ultraism is entitled to a respectful 
consideration, because it is adopted by many persons 
who wish to act conscientiously, and to obey God 
truly. They do not consider it ultraism, but only a 
direct following out of the most plain and simple pre- 
cepts of the gospel, and the best established laws of 
morality. 

Let us examine this doctrine candidly, and not 
shrink from examining it in its application to those 



8 

wrongs with which it charges this country at the 
present time. 

The doctrine here stated is revolutionary. By 
many it is openly and honestly held as such, and is 
always obviously such in its tendency. Well, there is 
such a thing, certainly, as a right of revolution. The 
only question is. What circumstances will justify the 
exercise of that right ? There are very grave consid- 
erations that should enter into the solution of this 
question. 

In the first place, it is to be considered that God 
ordains civil society. He puts men together, and has 
so constituted them that they must live in societies. 
He ordains nations. National compacts or societies 
are not arbitrary and artificial. They grow up neces- 
sarily. Their form and extent are determined in 
each case by a great variety of circumstances, events, 
and affinities, over which a high Providence presides, 
educing social combinations and national polities 
which no man or set of men has foreseen or planned, 
or could prevent, though men have been the instru- 
ments which that Providence uses in bringing about 
those results. No man can survey the face of the 
earth, and the pages of the world's history in all the 
past ages, and consider the origin and progress of the 
nations, without feeling that they are of divine ap- 
pointment, — that a stupendous Providence has su- 
perintended their existence and career, and has used 
both the virtues of good men and the crimes of bad 



men- in working out its results. And then such so- 
cieties, nations, if they must exist, must have govern- 
ments, — that is, such customs, laws, institutions, 
and terms of union, as grow up out of the origin, cir- 
cumstances, and character of the particular nation. 
So that government itself, inasmuch as it is an es- 
sential element of national society, which is a divine 
institution, — government must itself be regarded as 
a divine institution. It is neither cant nor mere 
rhetoric, that saying of St. Paul's, — " The powers 
that be are ordained of God." Then, further, a 
society corlstituted as a nation necessarily is must 
include all sorts of men, and of course many that 
are deficient in sound knowledge and moral princi- 
ple. And, of necessity, the latter sort of persons 
will have an influence, more or less, according to 
numbers and other circumstances, in producing bad or 
imperfect customs, laws, and institutions, vitiating 
more or less the public acts and relations of the body 
politic. Then the question arises. Are the moral. 
Christian members of the society morally implicated 
in the evil thus produced and done ? No, certain- 
ly, provided they employ such action and influence 
as the institutions of the country enable them to use, 
to prevent the evil. They are not implicated. How 
am I implicated, supposing that I am a thorough 
Christian, and have always advocated and voted for 
good measures, — how am I implicated in the evil that 
exists or is done in the nation as such ? I did not or- 
2 



10 

dain the nation to be, but God ordained it in his high 
providence. I did not have the forming of its ideas, 
usages, institutions, character. I did not become a 
member of the nation from my own choice. I was 
born into it, put into it by the Creator. I cannot help, 
therefore, being associated with some bad men in the 
national society, and so witnessing, perhaps suffering 
from, some bad institutions and measures. I cannot 
escape from this relationship. God holds me to it ; 
for no call of duty requires me to expatriate myself; 
and if I did, I must adopt some other country, where I 
should find social evil also, either in the same or a dif- 
ferent shape. I am not implicated. Society must 
exist, and my nature and the laws of God require me 
to be a member of society. There are bad members 
in it, and I cannot help it. Social evils exist and will 
arise, and I cannot help it. I can neither disown so- 
ciety, nor can I make it perfect. I am not impli- 
cated in its unchristian acts and institutions. 

It seems to me there is a great deal of mistaken 
and morbid moralizing on this matter of being re- 
sponsible for the institutions and acts of the country 
which we belong to. We are responsible only 
for those which we approve individually, and vote 
to establish or perpetuate. Those who speak with 
so much assurance of breaking up the social com- 
pact would do well to consider a little more pro- 
foundly the origin, the necessity, the providential 
character of civil society, and of each individual's 
position in it. 



11 

In the second place, when any thing like a rev- 
olution is contemplated, — a dissolution of a national 
compact, — before it is attempted or advocated, sev- 
eral grave inquiries ought to be instituted. It ought 
to be considered whether the moral evils which be- 
long to or spring from the existing national organiza- 
tion are really intolerable or enormous, relatively to 
the general condition of civilized and nominally 
Christian nations ; and whether those evils are great- 
er than might be expected to result from the moral 
imperfections of the people as individuals, taking 
into view all the untoward circumstances in which 
the present generation finds itself placed, and the 
usages and ideas handed down from its predecessors. 
It is also to be considered whether those evils are 
likely to be removed, and for the future prevented, 
by a subversion of the national organization, — and 
if that is likely, then, whether there is good ground 
of assurance that the fact and process of a political 
and social disruption, in connection with the bad 
elements of character previously extant among the 
people, are not likely to produce other and equivalent 
or greater evils. There are periods in the history 
of a nation when all these questions may be an- 
swered in the affirmative, and then revolution is 
justifiable ; but never otherwise. We have no moral 
right to do or say any thing to induce disunion and 
revolution, upon moral and Christian grounds^ until 
we are deliberately and dispassionately convinced 



12 

that the public sins and social evils under the pres- 
ent organization are greater than might be expected 
from the character of the people, and that a better 
average state of society for the whole country might 
and would be created out of the same materials, the 
same men, the same ideas and customs, the same 
amount of Christian principle and mental light. For 
we can have no materials more or better than these 
out of which to form a new society, and these, how- 
ever bad, will all remain to be disposed of as much 
after as before the dissolution. We have no moral 
right, in a fit of spleen or disgust, mortification or 
anger, or any unfounded and presumptuous idea of 
responsibility, — we have no right, on such grounds 
and in such a state of mind, to say a word or take 
a step to shake the pillars of the time-hallowed fabric 
of society which Providence has erected around us 
and placed us in, and by which and in which he gives 
such an unbounded sphere for outward welfare, for 
enjoyment, and for personal duty and holiness. The 
plea of humanity cannot sanctify a rash trifling with 
things so sacred as the providential bonds that hold 
society together, in such a degree of peace and amity 
as the human lot admits of. 

There is such a thing as the right of revolution ; 
and there are occasions, in the progress of human 
affairs, in which it may be righteously exercised ; but 
he who lightly provokes or anticipates the occasion 
neither obeys Christ nor serves his race, — is flilse 
both to Caesar and to God. 



13 

In this connection I must refer to two circumstan- 
ces which tend at the present time to disaffect the 
minds of many towards our national compact, and 
which give rise to many feelings, many words, and 
some acts, which, as far as they go, go to weaken 
the bonds of union, and to hasten the time when 
they will be severed. These are, first, the existing 
war with Mexico, and, second, the institution of slav- 
ery generally. 

First, the war. There are those, and they are 
many, amongst us, who hold that war in these days 
is always an unnecessary evil, and an impolitic 
as well as unchristian measure; and, therefore, a 
country that under any circumstances wages a war 
becomes less dear to them, and they are more wil- 
ling, perhaps eager, to dismember it and dissolve 
its civil bands. There is not time to discuss this 
general question now, of the non-necessity and un- 
justifiableness of all wars. 

But this war in particular is much more numerous- 
ly held to have been unnecessarily and wrongly in- 
duced on the part of this nation. It is held that we 
are the aggressors, and that even if the war be not 
unjust towards Mexico, — if she deserved chastise- 
ment, and can claim no sympathy, — still that the 
expense, sufferings, sorrows, and sins in which it in- 
volves our own country might have been avoided with- 
out loss of honor, or of any substantial rights or ad- 
vantages. This is certainly the opinion of multi- 



14 

tudes. Let me say it is my own opinion ; though 
I will by no means violate the proprieties of my 
position by denying the intelligence or the sincerity 
of those who profess a different opinion. The ques- 
tion, unfortunately, has something of a party charac- 
ter among us, and therefore I will not pursue it, — 
only to remark, that in Europe, out of the range of 
our party biases, the universal voice, so far as I have 
been able to gather it from the foreign press, declares 
us to be the aggressors, and regards us as provoking 
the war unnecessarily, at least, if not unjustly. 

Without going into the inquiry now, let us concede, 
for the purposes of the present discussion, that the 
war was unnecessary, at best, and therefore wrong ; 
criminal in itse f, hcwever innocent and honest may 
have been the intent of those who first originated or 
subsequently sanctioned and sustained it. Admitting 
this, what then ? what shall a Christian citizen say 
or do about it? and how should it affect his mind 
towards his country's institutions of government and 
union ? He should say and do nothing, I think, that 
may tend to weaken in himself or others the strong and 
fitting allegiance and attachment to those institutions 
as the appointment of Providence, and as fraught 
with as many present blessings, and with as good 
hopes for the future, as have ever been allotted to the 
nations of the earth. There is nothing in the fact 
of this war that will justify any feeling of disloyalty 
to the country, or any desire of its civil dissolution. 



15 

It is sad and painful, indeed, to the Christian, to be 
reminded, as he is by this war, that the law and spirit 
of the gospel are not yet universal and paramount in 
this country or in any other ; that the spirit of love 
has not yet superseded every other spirit ; that there 
are still active in human nature elements that tend to 
violence, and ambitions, energies, and impulses that 
sometimes impel to wrong, and do not always shrink 
even from blood and destruction. It is sad, I say, to 
the Christian to be reminded of this. But what 
then ? Did he not know it all before ? Did he not 
know that the perfect kingdom of God had not come 
upon earth? Did he not know that the passions 
which lead to war are still rife and visibly active all 
through the land and through the world? Did he 
not know that Christianity is even now nowhere any 
thing but a leaven in society, and that its spirit of 
gentleness, justice, and love is still only one element 
in a vast mass of influences that sway mankind ? 
Did he not know that the gospel has never yet any- 
where done any thing more than mitigate the pas- 
sions that lead to war, — not extinguished them, or 
brought them into any thing like complete subjection 
to its own mild spirit? Where has he lived, and 
what have been his associations, if he did not know 
these lamentable truths, before as much as since the 
Mexican war began ? 

This nation had been exempt from the scourge of 
foreign war for a period of thirty years, — a long period 



16 

of exemption, the student of history knows. The other 
leading nations of Christendom have also been to an 
unusual degree exempt fr )in war during the same 
period. This protracted time of general peace has 
been owing in part to the exhaustion induced by the 
long and severe wars in Europe, in the period just pre- 
ceding ; in part, also, to the extension and multiplica- 
tion of commercial ties ; in part, likewise, to the in- 
creased expensiveness of war, and the financial obsta- 
cles to it; and in part, no doubt, to the diffusion of 
more Christian light, and higher moral ideas upon the 
subject. These causes, working together, have given 
us a long exemption from war, and we might well have 
hoped that such a combination of favorable influences 
might have saved us longer from the evil. 

But how could any man, with the common faculty 
of observation, have worked himself into the happy 
delusion of supposing that purely moral and Chris- 
tian influences had become so predominant, here or 
elsewhere, as to give any promise of perpetual immu- 
nity ? 

Only look abroad, and see what elements of the 
war-flame there are everywhere. Is there not still 
injustice, and aggression, and retaliation, between 
man and man, in every day's transactions ? Is there 
not the grasping, domineering, crowding spirit mani- 
fest all around ? Is there not hot temper and malig- 
nant passion shown in the thousandfold collisions of 
private life ? Indeed there is. And what are these 



17 

but the elements of war ? There is discord often 
even within the sacred precincts of home, — quarrels 
between the nearest kin. Every neighbourhood has 
its little feud, — little, but bitter. The quietest village 
of Puritan New England is not safe from incendi- 
arism, riot, and bloodshed. Religious discussion is 
not free from acerbity and ungentle exclusiveness. 
Even philanthropy itself distils not a little of the ven- 
om of hatred and uncharitableness. 

If these things are so, is it strange that there should 
be war sometimes ? Can we expect that the elements 
of war will be always fermenting thus among our- 
selves, and that they never will break over our bor- 
ders, and breed a quarrel with a national neighbour ? 
Can there be violence, and bad temper, and unprinci- 
pled aggression, all through society, and will it never 
come to a head, and be a national sin, and break out 
upon another nation ? Shall we expect that raging 
fires can be pent up in the bowels of the earth, and 
never find a volcanic vent, — or that the electric flame 
can pervade the atmosphere, and never send a de- 
stroying bolt upon the earth ? Verily this war is not 
to be wondered at ! Nor does it afford any new 
or special reason for disgust or discontent with our 
national compact. It simply illustrates, what was 
plain before, that the people of this country have not 
reached that height of Christian morality which will 
preclude wars. 

Some persons are more disposed than before to 



18 

break up a national union which has the disposition 
and the power to involve us in such a war and to com- 
mit us to the responsibility of it. I have said enough 
on this matter of individual responsibility, and need 
not make an application of the subject to this point. 
But you say, you cannot share the responsibility of 
such iniquity as your country is practising through 
war. What will you do, then ? You will seek a bet- 
ter place to live. Go, then, to England, and share the 
responsibility of the opium war in China, and the war 
of endless aggrandizement in Afghanistan. Or to 
France, and chant the national anthem of glorification 
for Tahitan usurpation, Algerine conquest, and Arab 
extermination. Or go to Russia, and follow the Czar 
to the plains of Poland, or the mountain retreats of 
the brave Circassians. Or go to Spain, and enlist for 
life in a ruthless war of factions. Or, if this will not 
better your condition, or lighten your responsibility, 
then go to Italy, where there is unequalled moral 
degradation, but where there is not enough of union, 
nationality, and patriotism to rally the crushed and 
priest-ridden populace to a brave assertion of their 
rights against the mitre of Rome and the bayonets of 
Austria. If you renounce your country on account of 
its wicked war, go try one of these other countries. 
Or perhaps you will say, " No, let us stay where we 
are, but let us break up this ill-adjusted union ; let 
the remoter fragments take care of themselves, and 
we will have a smaller Northern empire by ourselves." 



19 

But what good will that proceeding do ? Will it in- 
fuse any more Christianity into the hearts of the 
whole people? Or are the people of the North so 
loving, so just, so gentle, so Christian, that they can 
never go to war ? Or shall we expect, that when this 
great nation is broken up into several small contigu- 
ous nations, there will be perpetual peace among 
them ? If the several portions do not like one another 
well enough to preserve the time-hallowed bonds that 
now unite them, will they all be loving and peaceful 
towards one another, when they have become rival 
states, with every unkind feeling exasperated by the 
harsh process of the breaking up ? And will the per- 
petual border collisions and animosities that must en- 
sue, ripening often, if not constantly, into downright 
wars, — will these be an agreeable or a Christian sub- 
stitute for this one single, distant, and probably brief, 
Mexican war? Let a man answer these questions, 
before he advocates national dissolution on moral 
grounds, or allows himself to part with all attach- 
ments to the institutions of his fathers. 

I trust I shall not be misunderstood with respect to 
the present war. Those who have listened to me 
here on other occasions must be well aware that I do 
not regard it with any undue leniency. If it suited 
our present subject to draw its moral characteristics, 
I trust appropriate colors would not be wanting to the 
pencil. But bad and mournful as the war is, and 
painful as are the revelations it makes concerning the 



20 

human heart, it is no cause of revolutionary thoughts 
or wishes. It ought not to diminish our love of our 
country, or our confidence in it as compared with any 
other country that exists, or any that we could make 
out of some fragments of the dissevered union. Not- 
withstanding the bad aspects of this war, there is not 
a nation on earth that gives better promise of peace 
for coming years, and all the blessings of peace, than 
this country, as at present constituted and united. 
Nor could we carve one out that would give better 
promise. We must have a country somewhere, and 
of some sort. God has given us one to love and to 
cherish, and as good a one as the lot of humanity has 
hitherto admitted of, or has any speedy prospect of. 
Let us, — I will say, not only in the name of patriot- 
ism, but in the name of Christianity, — let us love, 
and cherish, and maintain it. And we may be assured, 
that if we have a reasonable mind, and a kind spirit, 
and a due deference to Providence, we shall find no 
incompatibility in rendering to Csesar the things that 
are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. 

There are many other things that I desired to say 
concerning this war, considered as a sin, and the fruit 
of sin, as a calamity, and the mother of calamities, 
and yet as a retribution which Providence will use 
for some ultimate good, and which the God who ever 
causeth the wrath of man to praise him will make a 
fountain from which some wise lessons and true bless- 
ings will be made eventually to flow. But time is 
wanting. 



21 

We were to consider the subject of Slavery in this 
connection. It is a subject that has obtained more 
consideration amongst us of late than any other of a 
general and public nature. 

Slavery covers a large portion of our country. It 
began far back in the iniquities of the African slave- 
trade, and its continuance involves many wrongs and 
great misfortunes. What ought a Christian to do and 
think about it ? 

In the first place, let the Christian citizen not over- 
look the bad moral character of the institution, or be- 
come indifferent to its many evils, nor let him do any 
thing, by action or neglect, to promote its extension 
or continuance. 

In the second place, let him preserve his reason, his 
equanimity, his temper, and learn to look calmly upon 
an institution which Providence has permitted to ex- 
ist almost ever since the first formation of civil soci- 
ety, and which the same Providence seems likely to 
suffer to exist for some time longer. That is no rea- 
son why we should not use all fair and legitimate in- 
fluence to shorten its days ; but it is a reason why we 
should not suffer ourselves to be excited and angry, or 
to hate those portions of the country on which, by 
their fault or their misfortune, this evil presses, or why 
we should wish to be separated from them. 

I cannot see any thing but rashness, thoughtless- 
ness, and bad temper in the cry that is so common, — 
"No union with slaveholders." Suppose we should 



22 

separate, and break up our country ; will that abolish 
slavery ? Why, they at the South talk quite as loudly 
about dissolving the union for the purpose of perpetu- 
ating slavery. No union with slaveholders ? And why 
not ? Because they are sinners, you must say ; for 
we are now considering only the position of those who 
desire dissolution on moral grounds. No union with 
sinners ! What shall we do ? We cannot, then, have 
a Northern union of States, for there are sinners here 
of all sorts ; and, among other sorts of sin, there is a 
great deal of sympathy with slaveholding, and a readi- 
ness to help the South in perpetuating and extending 
it. There has never been a public measure adopted 
in favor of slavery, without the aid of Northern votes. 
No union with sinners ? Why, then we must dissolve 
all compacts, — that of the commonwealth, the county, 
the city ; we cannot trade with men, or do any busi- 
ness with them, for many of them are great sinners, 
and all of them more or less. We must dissolve our 
families, for there is sin there. The Christian must 
break all bonds and stand literally alone ; nay, accord- 
ing to that principle, — no union with sin, — almost ev- 
ery man would have to tear soul and body apart, for 
one or the other of them he will find stained with some 
sin. The only sense in which we can say, without 
absurdity, that we will have no union with slavehold- 
ers, or with any other class of sinners at the North or 
the South, is this, — that we will not take any part in 
their sin, nor encourage, nor countenance it. And 



23 

this the Christian may and should always say. But 
union with sinners must continue in many ways as 
long as human society endures, that is, as long as man 
is man. It is a false and foolish plea, that we must 
dissolve the union on Christian grounds, to avoid the 
responsibility of being identified in any way with sin- 
ners. On the contrary, it is our Christian duty to 
maintain the closest possible union with sinners, to 
pity them, to instruct them, to treat them as brethren, 
and aid them, whenever they will permit it, to recover 
from their sin. Withdraw from union with sinners ? 
The idea is at once foolish, selfish, unchristian, and, 
what is more to the purpose, utterly impracticable. 
There is neither patriotism, nor humanity, nor religion 
in proposing it. 

It would be a glorious thing, if our Southern States 
could find it practicable, and come to the determina- 
tion, to put an end to slavery on moral grounds, sim- 
ply for the sake of Christian justice. But we must 
not be surprised or angry if they do not, nor think 
them worse than mankind in general ; for never 
yet did any nation. Christian or heathen, perform 
such a stupendous act of social revolution, on mere 
moral grounds. It would not be done in Massachu- 
setts at this moment, on merely and strictly moral 
grounds, if the institution existed here in full vigor. 
It is the sort of sacrifice that no community ever 
makes on moral grounds alone. It is a pity that it 
is so, but so it is the world over. Let us spare our 



24 

vituperations. Let us not expect miracles too confi- 
dently, or any very sudden and extraordinary mani- 
festation of Christian principle, on the part of a whole 
country, and at great sacrifices, — for we shall not 
witness it either at the South or at the North. 

In the mean time, the institution of slavery is grow- 
ing weaker in this country, and will decline, — partly 
because higher moral ideas on the subject than pre- 
vailed in former ages are getting abroad, and more 
especially because the eternal laws of God's provi- 
dence are working against it. Slave states cannot 
prosper ; after they are fairly settled, and their first 
crops gathered, they all decline relatively to free 
states. They cannot be rich, nor populous, nor 
strong. They grow relatively weak. By multiply- 
ing the number of states, they may acquire an artifi- 
cial preponderance of political power, — a bloated sem- 
blance of strength ; yet by the laws of God they de- 
cline, and that on account of the bad working of that 
bad institution. And they must continue to decline, 
even though they should go on to plant slave colonies 
from the Rio Grande to Cape Horn. They will lose 
strength on one side faster than they can gain it on 
the other. I say this in no taunting spirit, and in no 
spirit of exultation over my countrymen, and my 
brethren, and fellow-sinners at the South. But it is 
God's law, — it must be, — and no doubt it had better 
be.* 

* " An inspection of the map of the United States displays the unri- 



25 

It is the right of the Free States, and I wish it 
were more extensively felt to be their sacred duty, to 
oppose by their votes, and all legitimate influences, 
the creation of any new Slave States, especially out 
of any territory, Mexican or American, that is now 
free. 

Had I a voice in the public councils, I would say 
to the advocates of slave extension, — if they would 
not listen to any moral plea, I would take ground 
more intelligible to them, — I would say to them, 
" We will not consent to bring new States into being, 
with that curse planted upon them by our act, and 
before they have a people to speak for themselves, — 



vailed natural advantages of Virginia. The ocean embraces it in wide 
bays and noble rivers. The air of heaven flows over it in most balmy and 
salubrious breezes. Alluvial meadows, swelling uplands, green and 
lovely intervals, romantic and noble mountains, diversify its surface, 
which extends beyond the summit ridge of the Atlantic States, and 
admits it to a participation of the benefits of the valley of the great West, 
whose rivers fertilize its interior boundary. In extent of territory, in 
natural productiveness, in the intellectual energies of its freeholders, and 
in its ancestral treasures of wisdom and patriotism, the Old Dominion 
has no superior in this confederacy. Under the census of 1820, the ratio 
of representation in Congress was fixed at 40,000, population being com- 
puted according to the provisions of the Constitution, and Virginia was 
entitled to 22 members. By the same apportionment, the State of New 
York was entitled to 34 members. Under the census of 1840, the ratio 
of representation was fixed at 70,680. New York retains the same num- 
ber as under the census of 1820, namely, 34, while Virginia has gone 
down to 15 ! a loss of nearly one third of her political power in 20 years ! 
How long will it be before her patriotic and enlightened statesmen will 
return to their senses on this subject, and, following the counsels of Jef- 
ferson, bravely meet the question on its merits, and revive the wasting en- 
ergies of their people and their soil 1 

" It is now twenty-five years since the American confederacy was con- 
vulsed to its centre, and the government threatened with dissolution, on 



26 

that curse which must blight their future career. 
Look at jour own impoverished, half-depopulated, 
slovenly cultivated States. Compare Kentucky with 
Ohio, or Virginia with New York, in all that constitutes 
the prosperity of states. Review the sayings and writ- 
ings of your own sages and statesmen in the old time, 
who pronounced this institution to be founded in 
flagrant wrong, and fraught with unmitigated calami- 
ty. Look at all the distinct and fearful commentaries 
on this institution, to be found within your own bor- 
ders ; and then do not wonder that we refuse,— simply 
as men, citizens, patriots, — refuse to bring new com- 
munities into being, blighted by our act from their 
birth, and by our hands saddled with ruin from their 



the admission of the territory of Missouri to the Union. The party in 
Congress, resolved upon allowing the institution of slavery to exist in that 
State, finally prevailed. Looking at the progress and condition of Ohio, 
and the other States which have grown up under the celebrated Ordinance 
of 1787, and considering the natural resources and advantages of Missouri, 
it can scarcely be doubted, that, if it had been consecrated to free labor, it 
would, before this, have overflowed in prosperity, and other States have 
been seen advancing into the circle of the Union beyond its remotest bor- 
ders. Now what are the facts 1 In his recent annual message, the gov- 
ernor of that State, in all the deliberateness and solemnity of an official 
announcement, declares,—' With our rich soil and genial climate, we are 
not a prosperous and thriving people ' ; and plainly, with faithful bold- 
ness, accounts for the failure. ' We depend,' says he, ' on physical la- 
bor, and reject the superior advantages of mental labor. We depend on 
brute force, and reject the superior advantages of skill and science.' 

"With such demonstrations, — and they might easily be indefinitely 
multiplied, — will it be possible for our countrymen, in any section of the 
Union, much longer to keep themselves blind to the law of Providence, 
thus announcing itself, like the handwriting of God on the walls of Bel- 
shazzar's palace, in letters of light and of fire?" — Upham^s Oration 
before the New England Society in the City of Neio York, pp. 33, 34 



27 



cradles. As political fathers and guardians of new 
States, we will not blast our offspring with the seeds 
of incurable disease, and a slow but certain death. 
For the fault will be more ours who begin the mis- 
chief than theirs who, in after generations, will have 
to bear it because they will not know how to help 
themselves. We give our solemn, united, and unal- 
terable ' No ! ' to every act that would involve us in 
this guilt." 

O, it is greatly to be desired that on this momen- 
tous question the North and the West should be true 
to themselves ; and that with no selfish and sectional 
spirit, but so true to themselves as to be true to the 
whole country, true to future generations, — and for 
some it may not be in vain to add, true to the be- 
hests of justice, humanity, and religion. 

Whatever be the course of events on this and kin- 
dred subjects, I see no occasion for passionate excite- 
ment. Let us use our influence for the right, — use it 
soberly, in good-nature, unprovoked, without threats 
and without alarm ; and in the mean time, let God's 
providence work on, and work out its great designs, 
as it surely will, in its own good time. 

We cannot but deplore the moral evils of all sorts 
that fester in the hearts of the people, and get embod- 
ied in institutions, and sometimes break out into war. 
We will deplore them, and do what we may in our lit- 
tle spheres to cure them, or lessen their growth. But 
still be calm. They are nothing new. They have 



28 

not arisen in a day, and will not be cured in a day. 
They are not more or greater than they have always 
been among men, but rather less. We must learn, 
not to be idle, not to be indifferent, not to assist 
and countenance wrong, but to be patient with it. 
God is patient. He is long-suffering. He takes a 
great deal of time for the removal of evil, and the 
accomplishment of his plans. We cannot hurry him, 
we cannot take the work out of his hand. We can 
only cooperate with him, and wait his time. 

Christianity is not enthroned among the nations, 
and it will not be in our day. We cannot establish 
the perfect law of love in our time, but we can best 
do our httle towards it by seeing to our own hearts 
and lives, and manifesting the spirit of love in all our 
dealings with our fellow-men, and all our acts as 
neighbours, as members of a community, as the com- 
panions of the imperfect and sinful, and as citizens of 
an imperfect, yet favored country. Let us not child- 
ishly, petulantly, grow angry and impatient, and clam- 
or for national dismemberment, when things go 
wrong, as they often will in this world, — but have 
faith in God, and brotherly kindness towards our fel- 
low-men, and possess our souls in patience. If the 
holy God can have patience with his froward chil- 
dren, how much more should we, who share their 
imperfection and perverseness, and are in our various 
ways, it is likely, as bad as the rest ! 

Who are we, sinners every one, who cannot live 



t 



29 

in the nearest relations of life without sin, nor even 
plead for righteousness and Christian love without 
losing often the very spirit that we desire to 
spread, — who are we, to say to any class of our 
fellow-citizens, or any portion of our country, " Stand 
aside ; let there be no fellowship between us, for we 
are holier than ye " ? The love of man and the love 
of country are not incompatible. They are ever 
most likely to be found together. Patriotism and re- 
ligion are not antagonist sentiments. The law of 
love and right, revealed in the word of God, is not at 
variance with the providence of the same God, which 
has ordained the ties of nations and the love of 
country. 

He who will may find a way to render unto Caesar 
the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things 
that are God's, and so be true alike and at once to 
the claims of heaven and the relations of earth. 



H 33 



89 VI 



-$ 




^/'Wy "v^\^*' \/'Wy v" 








0° 






>^ •*• ^^ , -^ 




